💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › copyrite.inf captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:12:44.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Date: Thursday, 12 April 1984 00:58-MST From: Ron Fowler To: All Re: INFO-COPYRIGHT AM DIGEST: APRIL 12, 1984 [ copyright (c) 1984 Ronald G. Fowler ] There has been some controversy lately regarding the distribution of public domain software with respect to the copyright law. I've done some preliminary research, and thought I'd share my findings with the group. Specifically in question has been Irv Hoff's copyright of his MDM modem series, especially as it relates to Ward Christensen's orig- inal work and Mark Zeiger's extensive enhancements to the program. Prevention of "profit-taking" and sale of public-domain software has also been discussed. Fundamental to securing copyright protecton is the publication of a work; generally you may copyright unpublished work without restrict- ion (i.e., you don't have to maintain a copyright notice in the work). Legally, 'publishing' is the "distribution of copies ... to the pub- lic, by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending". I think we can safely say that work distributed by SIG/M and the CPMUG can be deemed legally "published". Both the old (1909) copyright law and the new (1978) require a that a copyright notice be placed in the work, in order to secure the copy- ight. While the newer law addresses procedures for omission of this notice (in order that a mistaken omission not cause loss of copyright protection) the older law did not. Work published prior to 1 January, 1978 falls under the jurisdiction of the older law. In fact, Copyright Office Circular "R1" specifically mentions this circumstance: "If a work was published under the copyright owner's authority before January 1, 1978, without a proper copyright notice, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States. The new copyright law does not provide retroactive pro- tection for those works." Now MODEM2 was published by CPMUG, without copyright notice, in 1977. So much for any claim poor Ward might have. MODEM2 is therefore unquestionably in the public domain. (Note that the terms "copyright" and "public domain" are mutually exclusive, under the law. "Public domain" is work without copyright, either by expiration of an existing copyright, or by forfeiture of copyright by the author. Hence, a disclaimer like "Copyright (c) 1984 by Calvin C. Codehacker: contributed to the public domain, may not be sold commercially" is a contradiction in terms, and may very well jeopardize the author's right to copyright. For that reason, I *never* refer to the "public domain" in any programs I introduce to the user community for which I desire to retain copyright pro- tection). (Side note: there is absolutely *nothing* to prevent a commercial in- terest from selling public domain work, legally or ethically. Have you ever seen an anthology of Edgar Allen Poe, or a recently reprinted "Moby Dick", both of which have fallen into the public domain? Has sale of these caused any kind of public outcry of "ripoff!"? Think about it...) Back to MODEM2 and MODEM7: Zeiger and Hoff's enhancements have been published (SIG/M, I believe) after 1 January, 1978, and thus fall under the jusrisdiction of the 1978 law, which provides for "derivative work". A "derivative work" is "a work based on one or more preexisting works". This seems to be subject to copyrights held by the author of the previous work, but is not spelled out specifically in the material I've seen so far. I'd hazard to guess that Hoff and Zeiger are on pretty stable ground, though, *unless* either has failed to actually secure the copyright by registration. That's where things begin to get a little shaky. Generally, you don't have to register to claim copyright; you can reg- ister anytime within five years of publication and still establish prima facie evidence in court of the copyright's validatity. There is a "gotcha" though: if the work is not registered within 3 months after publication, then no statutory damages or attorney's fees are available to the plaintiff in an infringement suit. In this case, only actual damages and lost profits are available, and in "free" distribution software, there are very little damages indeed (perhaps if the author is a professional who receives value from the circulation of his name in "free" software, the loss of that circulation could constitute a damage....). Now I think we have a clear idea of how to proceed with new "freeware": 1) Claim copyright in the published work (copyright circular "R61" suggests placing the notice in the program's sign-on message, if it has one. By the way, this pub is specific to computer software). 2) Do not fail to actually register the copyright with the Copyright office, within 3 month of publication. 3) Never mention the public domain in relation to your work. With these requirements met, the software is protected to the extent that you can confidently proceed legally against infringers, including attorney's fees and statutory damages. Merely by virtue of your author- ship (and, of course, your copyright). --------- Interesting aside: if you publish work with the Copyright notice included, you *must* deposit a copy with the Copyright office for the use of the Library of Congress; failure to do so can result in fines and other penalties. (Note that there are certain exceptions and modifications to this rule for various types of copyright works). Also: Forms are available from the U.S. Government Copyright Office: dial (202) 287-9100. Ask for form TX and Circulars R1 and R61. The cheapskates will only send you five TX's for one phone call.